Sir Alan accused of sexism towards Apprentice villain Katie

The business tycoon has been criticised for questioning Apprentice contestant Katie Hopkins about her children and family arrangements – a move some groups warn could be a violation of sex discrimination laws.

Hopkins, the power-dressing villainess in the series, was told she was through to next week's final, only to quit a few moments later.

Scroll down for more

Earlier, Sugar asked Hopkins, a 31-year-old mother of two, about relocating her children from Devon to London.

He said: "Exeter, Devon, two little kids. How's life going to be if I say to you, 'Katie, right, you're down in London. You've got to move your family, move your location."

Hopkins said her parents may consider also making the move, to which Sugar replied, "I'm worried here."

After Sir Alan had fired Tre, he noticed Katie's glum expression. He said: "You don't look like a lady who's just been told you've entered the final. Everyone would appreciate it if you spoke up."

She shocked him by saying: "I'm making a decision without having the courtesy to speak to the people who care for my children. It's a risk, it's a discourtesy to my parents."

A furious Sir Alan snapped back: "I haven't got time to wait for you to make a phone call."

After a dramatic pause, Katie said: "I don't want to make a fool of you or me. I think it's more important to get the courtesy to have my plans in place, so I'll have to stand down."

Apprentice contestant Kristina Grimes, who is now in the final, was also quizzed about her family commitments.

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber told The Independent: "The Apprentice is just a show but had last night been a genuine interview, Kristina and Katie could have had real grounds for complaint against Sir Alan.

Scroll down for more

He added: "Any employer who asks only the female candidates about how their children and personal circumstances may affect their ability to do a job could find themselves in hot water."

Liberal Democrat women's spokesperson Lorely Burt told the paper: "This is a classic example of the kind of casual discrimination still faced by working women every day."

A spokesperson from the programme denied Sugar's behaviour was sexist, but rather a move to test the their level of commitment, telling The Independent: "As part of the interview process, Sir Alan and his colleagues interrogated all of the candidates about their commitment to the process and the job.

He wanted to put them under pressure to be able to be fully confident that they were serious about the opportunity he was offering them.

"Sir Alan was intent on ensuring that he did not take on an apprentice who later pulled out due to lack of commitment. Some of the candidates - including Simon Ambrose - were therefore asked about their living and family arrangements, as it is essential to Sir Alan that his apprentice is close on hand and can be available at any time of day or night if necessary."

In a separate controversy, conspiracy theorists on the internet have accused the BBC of rigging the programme and demanded that the full tapes be handed over under Freedom of Information laws.

They are suspicious that Ms Hopkins, 31, capitulated quite so readily under probing from Sir Alan Sugar, the millionaire businessman who each series hands out a £100,000 job to the winner. Ms Hopkins's decision to quit leaves Kristina Grimes, the favourite, and Simon Ambrose to battle it out in next week's final.

Scroll down for more

One internet blogger said today: "The Katie walk-out didn't convince me at all. It was horribly staged and edited."

Another wrote: "There was something fishy going on with the editing there, unless 'SurAlan' [Sir Alan] is a closet medium and just knew Katie would change her mind."

Several dissatisfied viewers suggested Ms Hopkins pulled out at a later stage, forcing scenes to be re-shot. One blogger wrote: "There was clever editing because Katie's cheeks were different shades of red each time the camera cut to her."

Paul Callaghan, a contestant who had a brief affair with Ms Hopkins said: "They can take up to 12 hours to shoot the boardroom scene. Loads of it is redone. You're often taken outside and told what to say before going back in."

It has been suggested Ms Hopkins, who earns £90,000 a year as a brands consultant, is more interested in fame than a job. It is understood she is offering to sell her story for £30,000 and has already hired the PR agency that looks after Robbie Williams.

Sir Alan said of Ms Hopkins: "It's clear she was there to win and show how clever she was but not for the actual job. I had doubts about her a few times in the past weeks."

The BBC was unavailable for comment.

Afterwards reports say the unpopular contestant who has had affairs with three married men said: "This is one of the first times in my life probably that I've ever said no to a man."

Fellow contestants Simon Ambrose and Kristina Grimes will now battle it out for a £100,000 job with Sir Alan.

In a pre-recorded interview with radio station Heart FM Katie said of the final two contestants: "I'd like to smash a glass ceiling over Kristina. It's got to be Simon that wins."

In the show she bragged about her "ruthless streak" and when asked: "Have you ever lied or cheated to get what you want?" She replied: "Yes, to get someone else's husband because I wanted him."

Katie was photographed last week allegedly romping in a field with a married colleague, Mark Cross - although some said the photos were not as "snatched" as they appeared.

Her shock decision means next week's final will be a head-to-head between Simon, 27, a Cambridge graduate and Internet entrepreneur from London, and Kristina, 36, a single mother and pharmaceutical manager originally from Wicklow, Ireland.

The winner will be revealed on BBC1 next Wednesday.